Planning round-up: BCA allowed to keep temporary classrooms

Here are the latest and most significant planning applications in the Royal Borough. To find out more, enter their reference numbers into the planning portal at publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications

Approved: Temporary classrooms at BCA will be allowed to stay in place for another five years – helping it keep much-needed teaching space.

Four temporary buildings used as classrooms at Berkshire College of Agriculture have been granted permission to stay until 2030.

The portacabins – which provide eight classrooms – are located within the core of the college campus.

They were previously approved in 2021 and were originally intended as a short-term solution to meet rising demand.

According to planning documents, the college has already exceeded 106 per cent of its teaching space capacity – and is still seeking Government funding to convert older buildings into permanent classrooms.

The temporary facilities are said to be particularly important for students with special educational needs or education, health and care plans (EHCPs).

Although the site lies within the greenbelt and within the setting of the Grade I listed Hall Place, planning officers concluded that the educational need outweighed any harm to heritage or openness.

This is helped by the buildings’ low height and temporary nature.

Nonetheless, they must be removed five years from the date of the decision, made on July 3 – unless BCA applies successfully for renewed temporary permission again.

25/01191

Pending: A plan for six homes on the greenbelt that was permitted on appeal has reached the next stages in its life.

An outline application covering the principle of six detached houses at Willow Manor in Fifield was refused by RBWM – just the decision was overturned in 2022.

Applicants had argued that the plan counted as ‘limited infilling in a village’. In plain English, infilling means building a small number of new homes in a gap between existing buildings, usually within a village or built-up area.

This usually increases the likelihood that an application for something on the greenbelt will be approved – as long as the council agrees that plans count as infilling.

But RBWM did not agree, saying the site lay outside the village boundary of Fifield and therefore would not to qualify as infilling.

Because of this, they argued the proposal was inappropriate development in the greenbelt and therefore harmful by definition.

Moreover, ‘very special circumstances’ that would justify the harm hadn’t been demonstrated, they felt.

However, at appeal, the planning inspector disagreed with the council’s interpretation. They found the site did fall within the village envelope and qualified as limited infilling.

As a result, the inspector ruled the scheme was not inappropriate development, and granted permission.

Now a reserved matters application has been submitted, covering details such as layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.

Homes will each with four bedrooms, a double garage, private gardens, cycle and bin storage, and space for additional parking with electric vehicle charging points. The existing house would be demolished.

Five of the new houses would share a new access off Fifield Road, while the sixth would use an existing side lane.

The site includes two protected trees, one of which – a mature willow – would be retained and used as a focal point for the development.

Other existing trees would also be kept where possible, and planting is proposed throughout to soften the scheme.

The layout has been updated since pre-application discussions to reduce ridge heights, avoid awkward garden shapes and provide better separation between houses.

The revised design includes more traditional features, such as pitched roof porches, red brickwork with detailing, and gabled projections to add visual interest.

Biodiversity net gain would be delivered through a combination of on-site planting and the purchase of off-site habitat credits.

The planning statement says the scheme will bring forward ‘contextually appropriate development’ and contribute to family housing in a borough currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

Despite the appeal decision, RBWM can still refuse this, if these particular elements of the design are against council policy.

25/01573

Pending: Six flats are proposed above the former Barclays in Maidenhead High Street, adjusting a previous scheme.

Bayley Homes Ltd has submitted a revised prior approval application to convert the first and second floors of 92 High Street, Maidenhead – as well as a small rear section of the ground floor – into six studio flats.

The upper floors were formerly used as part of a Barclays bank but have been vacant since April 2024.

A previous scheme for four flats was refused in May on the grounds that not all the units met national space standards and some rooms lacked adequate natural light.

The developer says the new plans address both issues.

The building lies in the conservation area and within the AL2 site allocation, which earmarks a broader area for regeneration with retail, employment and 300 homes.

The flats will be accessed from West Street and car-free, with one cycle space per flat.

25/01675

Pending: Two terraces of three houses could replace a long-vacant plot in Maidenhead under new plans.

Leon Tusz (Developments) Ltd has applied to build six houses with gardens, parking and access on the southern side of Belmont Road, opposite Hargrave Road.

The 1,400sqm site was once occupied by a large detached house but is currently empty.

The new scheme proposes two staggered terraces (not a straight line along the frontage), each containing three homes, with parking spaces to the front and private gardens to the rear.

Plots 1, 2, 5 and 6 would be three-bedroom homes with rooms on three floors, while plots 3 and 4 would be two-bedroom houses.

Each would have around 100sqm of garden space and one parking space.

The latest application builds on previous permissions. A similar scheme for six homes was granted on appeal in 2020 and later amended. This version introduces small layout changes and adds a half-hipped roof with dormers at each end of the terraces.

A statement submitted with the application says the changes would not harm the street scene or neighbours’ outlook, and that the proposals remain ‘appropriate to the form and pattern of development in the locality’.

25/01628

Approved: Four new houses in White Waltham will replace two existing ones.

Chartridge Developments has been granted permission to knock down two houses in Waltham Road and build four detached homes in their place.

The plan covers Tudor House and Half Acre, which are set back from the road opposite White Waltham Airfield.

Tudor House had previously been used as a care home and later as a house in multiple occupation.

The new houses will each have five bedrooms. Two will front Waltham Road and two will be built at the rear. The access will be widened and rearranged, with a new drive serving the rear homes.

Earlier proposals for five houses were scaled back following pre-application advice from the Royal Borough, which said three houses at the rear would feel cramped.

The latest plan was also designed to keep the floorspace below 1,000sqm to avoid triggering an affordable housing requirement.

Neighbours raised concerns about privacy, building height, safety of the access, and the proximity of a parking area to an outdoor patio.

However, the council’s planning officer concluded that the proposal would be in keeping with the area and would not cause ‘significant or demonstrable harm’ to justify refusal.

25/00363